I've been reading over the discussion between ricaleigh007 and jrutled3. I'm going to do a video covering your discussion so you can be looking for that very soon. I would just point out here that we cannot turn to a man-made dictionary to define God's word for us. Look up the word baptism, for example. The dictionary just gives the current common usage of a word.
Even with the dictionary definition, the true church of Christ doesn't fit the definition. "Church of Christ" is one among many scriptural designations and has become the more commonly used out of necessity for the sake of identifying local New Testament congregations in various geographical areas. If things were as they were in the first century we could use any of the designations and that would be sufficient to identify it from other world religions.
Because by your theory when a cofC has something wrong doctrinally they are going to Hell for their mistake. We live under grace brother and we are just as screwed up as other churches with schisms, adultery and the like. All of the churches I have been to have been on the legalistic side and not grace. I want to worship where there is joy that is why I am looking at other churches this week. I want to be with happy joyful Christians not Pharisees. I feel the cofC is a denomination myself.
Buy yourself a dictionary. Denomination is a name designation for a group of people. Stop being intellectually dishonest thinking you are not like everyone else, and an elitist. I left cofC over people like that, self righteous Pharisees. And I am MUCH happier to be with the TRUE church, not some proud works-based DENOMINATIONS of cofC who think they are the only Christians (can anyone say cult?).
Those who wish to call the Lord's church a cult or denomination would benefit greatly - if they read with a willing mind and open heart - from an article written by the late Dr. Hugo McCord called "Earmarks of the True Church". It's very insightful.
Those who practice sectarianism and divide the body of Christ, saying their interpretation of the Word is the only way to heaven are nothing short of a cult. But you won't even look up the meaning of denomination in a dictionary, so I am not hopeful that you will seek the truth. I have left cofC and my eyes have been opened. No more fear mongering for me.
Who says I haven't looked it up in a dictionary; you? You do so with no proof, and make yourself out to be a liar out of ignorance because, in fact, I have.
If you've read the article I referred you to you might conclude that I'm of the same mindset as Dr. McCord. The scriptures never give a formal name to the kingdom of God. All the names present in scripture are, in reality, descriptions of the nature of the church. To unlawfully give it a formal name is to denominate it.
And I'd also like to point out that you ridiculed me for no reason. Why? All I did was refer you to an article that I thought was insightful and that you might find interesting.
My apologies, I am just tired of arguing the same arguments over and over when the dictionary clearly states any group with a collective name is a denomination. Also nowhere do you find the name "church of Christ" mentioned. When referring to multiple churches they are one time called churches of Christ. If you want to be literal about it churches should only be called "the Ephesian church", "church at Smyrna", etc.
That's how silly things get when we need "authorization" for everything.
I don't think it's silly to need authorization for everything because "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." There are three things that need to be taken from this scripture; no, four things. 1) Jesus is commanding this; 2) Worship is direct to God; 3) Our worship MUST be in spirit; and 3) Our worship MUST be in truth.
Not only should our worship to God be spiritual, full of solemnity and love, but also conducted in the truth of God's revealed word.
While I also see nothing wrong with simply saying "The Church at ..." - so long as they remain in the spirit and doctrine of Christ - there is nothing wrong with recognizing ownership of the church on a church sign, or on the building itself. The apostles didn't either, frequently saying "church of God" in their writings. But men did not purchase His church with their blood, and so the church cannot bear their names. To recognizing the church as anyone else's is to denominate it.
If you want to play the "authorization game" you live and die by that man made "law". Where do you have authorization for Power Point, church buildings, crackers and a thimble of grape juice, microphones, etc. Yet you do have authorization for anointing with oil, laying of hands, spiritual gifts, prophecy, women covering heads, etc. yet cofC is blissfully silent or blatantly against these.
PowerPoint, church buildings, etc. are expediencies, not doctrinal issues. The laying on of hands was only something that could be done by the apostles (to dispense miraculous gifts that could not be passed on) or by the elders confirming a minister or another elder. Since we have no apostles, and no one the apostles laid their hands on living today, it's safe to say that the miraculous side of that issue is a mute one (also spiritual gifts and prophecy).
And the comment of women covering their heads was directed to women causing discord among the brethren. They thought that they did not have to submit themselves to social norms, and therefore cause dissension and rebellion among the brethren of that congregation.
Context is always key when discussing doctrinal issues. Does that make things inconsistent? No. Speaking out of ignorance and inaccurately handling the word of truth, however, does.
"And the comment of women covering their heads was directed to women causing discord among the brethren."
1Co 11:5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head; for that is even the same as if she were shaved.
So this is only for some rebellious women, according to you? Then when and why did the rebellious women win? And doesn't this prove the point that culture plays a role in worship? Doesn't fit what cofC teaches about culture being irrelevant.
You should read the entire context of that verse in 1 Corinthians 11 (specifically 1-22) and then you will understand, hopefully, what I was saying. Verse 16 is a key one in this case.
Are you kidding me? It would seem that it wasn't merely a cultural issue. The women, and some of the men as well, were acting out of order. And Paul makes his main point by looking not to the culture of the times, but to creation itself (8-9). His point was not that culture has precedence over the worship of the church. It was that women and men were being contentious and causing disturbances in the church. Therefore, he stepped in to control the matter (16-17), reproving them at every angle.
"Therefore, he stepped in to control the matter (16-17), reproving them at every angle. "
And which side of that battle are you on? Who won that battle, and why are you not insisting that women act accordinglly? You are making my point for me btw.
"PowerPoint, church buildings, etc. are expediencies, not doctrinal issues. " Where's your Biblical authorization for that statement? Either everything needs to be authorized or not. You can't have it both ways.
The early church met in houses and Jewish temples. There is no scriptural reference where the place of meeting was of any significance for the NT church. In fact, there is quite the opposite. Go back to John 4.
"Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the the Father. [...] But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth..." (John 4:21,23).
Says you. This is also just another example of a cofC'er picking and choosing which scripture they will bind on others and which they explain away. You can't have it both ways; if you want to say we have to all have the same name as the early NT church, then you have to also say that we need to meet in homes and sell all our belongings and give the proceeds to the poor.
You are unbelievable, belligerently pulling my comments out of context and adding to them. Show me where I said that we needed to meet in homes and sell all our belongings. I'll give you hint where to start: I never did.
I said that NT worship is irrespective of place because, for one, that's what Jesus said. Secondly, that was the practice of the NT church. Regardless of wherever we meet - in homes, buildings, or under a tree - we are commanded to gather and worship God in spirit and truth.
If you would remember correctly what I said you would quit lying about what I have said. The kingdom of God does not have a formal name. It was the church - the one lead by the apostles and which continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine - that belonged to God and Christ. Nothing more, nothing less. To add a name devised of men is to corrupt and adulterate the church. The church belongs to Christ. It is His bride. If Christ did not denominate the church, where did man get the audacity?
And crackers and thimbles of juice in place of the Lord's supper not doctrinal??? If the Lord's supper isn't doctrinal I don't know what is. You tread a razor thin line of don ctrine, and I think you just bit the dust on that one.
I have a strong feeling that whatever doesn't fit into your "against all things coc" you will call Pharisee-ism. Therefore, I doubt anything I say will ever break the surface of your very own Pharisaical hardheadedness.
But since you asked, I would like to point out that the very subject of Christ and His work in our stead is a very solemn yet joyous topic. One scriptural reference would be Acts 28:23 where Paul was "solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God."
Pharisees are the ones who bind on everyone else their particular set of beliefs and say it is the only way to Heaven, and condemn all others.
Also the word solemn is not in the NT. I am looking at the Greek and it isn't there. But if it were there you still wouldn't have a leg to stand on saying because Paul was solemn once, every worship following should be. That would be a non sequitur. What God didn't say, don't bind on others. Could it be any easier?
Well, if you wish to take the argument that far, then you might as well say that not one word in the English NT is in the Greek (accept for those that are transliterated). But isn't that the whole point of translation?
I would still disagree. The word in that verse is diamarturomai which means "to testify, attest to, to solemnly affirm." And many times when Paul's ministry was described by himself or others, this word was used. And for Peter as well, in Acts 2:40.
You still missed my point: even if Paul was solemn when he preached the word once, doesn't mean you make that a law of worship. Stop with the Pharisee view of worship. We are under grace and liberty, not another set of laws. CofC is not teaching grace properly. Perfect love casteth out fear.
"If I think more of my reasoning and deduction than I do of my brethren, I'll sacrifice brotherhood to my deduction. The reverse is not true. Through brotherly love I can retain both my brethren and my personal conviction. This I am resolved to do. It is merely a matter of priorities."
I do not know who you are quoting from, but I must ask you something: Would you sacrifice your relationship with God in order to maintain unity with a brother or sister who is in error?
John warned that we are not to even send a greeting to those who do not abide in the teaching of Christ (2 John 9-11). Paul even instructed the Corinthians "not to associate with any so-called brother" who was in error. He even commanded them, "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves" (1 Corinthians 5).
My relationship w/God isn't ever "sacrificied" when I love people. The verses u quote come from 3 separate contexts & really can't be mixed together to prove the point you made. Jesus gave us 2 direct commands which seem to make your question moot(Mark 12). How could loving other people EVER sacrifice my relationship with God when He says that the greatest 2 commands are to, in fact, love God and love each other? The litmus test for christianity is not our perfect doctrine keeping-it's love.
I never said that you could not love people. Indeed, Christ demanded that we first love God, and then our neighbor. Your quote says, "It is merely a matter of priorities." I agree. Confused at what you wished to covey, I introduced the topic of a brother in error. In such a case you are to love God more and follow His revealed conviction. You can't have fellowship with a fallen brother and God too. By the way, I only quoted two portions of scripture, so how can there be three different contexts?
I don't think the quote is referring to truth vs error. It is talking about my conviction vs your conviction. If you associate your reasoning and deduction from Scripture as "truth" and another's as "error", then that's where this quotes suggestion can help. 1 Cor 5 refers specifically to an immoral man. Not someone who thinks it's ok to use musical instruments, for ex. The priority is maintaining one's conviction w/humility & not sacrificing relationship with my brethren over it.
I do not know who you are quoting from, but I must ask you something: Would you sacrifice your relationship with God in order to maintain unity with a brother or sister who is in error?
John warned that we are not to even send a greeting to those who do not abide in the teaching of Christ (2 John 9-11). Paul even instructed the Corinthians "not to associate with any so-called brother" who was in error. He even commanded them, "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves" (1 Corinthians 5).
The Church of Christ is a denomination. The Churches of Christ movement was one of several associations and denominations that developed from Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott and Barton W. Stone's restoration movement of the early 19th century, which was designed to promote unity among Protestants.
It has all of the characteristics of a denomination: Church buildings, church signs, organization, membership..etc. Look up denomination sometime and see what it means.
God did not invent denominations, man did. Jesus said, "I will build MY church,..." (Matthew 16: 18). The word "church" literally means "the called out" (check any New Testament Greek/English Dictionary). It is a collective noun used to refer to "a people for God's own possession,...called out of darkness into His marvelous light,... the people of God" (1 Peter 2:9,10). ndividually, they are called "Christians" (1 Peter 4:16; Acts 11;26),
Forget it, they are not intellectually honest enough to admit they are a denomination like everyone else. They fiercely deny that though anyone with a dictionary knows that is a lie. And they trace their movement all the way back to the first century church which is another fallacy. Where was cofC for almost two thousand years? Hmmmm...
I'm a member of a cofC and I think it's outrageous to say that. The Lord adds to HIS church those who are being saved? What makes you think that is cofC and not just whoever he adds to HIS church? It sounds like the Pharisees who thought they knew the law so they were righteous but they had no understanding, or compassion. Is it the perfect doctrine because that doesn't exist? Is it the name? There will never be a perfect cofC worship and cofC are just as much sinners as anywhere else.
Norm- wonder why Carl Ketcherside ( church of christ preacher ) used to say that there were christians in almost every denomination, Alexander Campbell said the same thing, Ketcherside also said - where God has a child, I have a brother, albeit, he might be a brother in error, but thats the ONLY kind of brother we can have - for we are all in error - even YOU. You should read some of the writings of Carl Ketcherside, it might open thine eyes a little. Anyway, regarding Acts 2:47 - cont
Regarding Acts 2:47 - The Lord adds to his UNIVERSAL church - written in Heaven - not some man made local church with a man made book of names, the Lords church exists in Heaven and functions on earth in various local human bodies, and the NAME church of Christ is NOT an exlusive name for the Lords church anyway - in Rom 16:16, the literal meaning there is - assemblies of the annointed one, more often the scriptures identify the Lords church as the church of God anyway - chew on that!
This has been flagged as spam show
blow out your ass you blowhard....jerking yourself off like that for all the world to see, pastornonothing
elchasai 1 year ago
I've been reading over the discussion between ricaleigh007 and jrutled3. I'm going to do a video covering your discussion so you can be looking for that very soon. I would just point out here that we cannot turn to a man-made dictionary to define God's word for us. Look up the word baptism, for example. The dictionary just gives the current common usage of a word.
PreacherNorm 3 years ago
Even with the dictionary definition, the true church of Christ doesn't fit the definition. "Church of Christ" is one among many scriptural designations and has become the more commonly used out of necessity for the sake of identifying local New Testament congregations in various geographical areas. If things were as they were in the first century we could use any of the designations and that would be sufficient to identify it from other world religions.
PreacherNorm 3 years ago
Because by your theory when a cofC has something wrong doctrinally they are going to Hell for their mistake. We live under grace brother and we are just as screwed up as other churches with schisms, adultery and the like. All of the churches I have been to have been on the legalistic side and not grace. I want to worship where there is joy that is why I am looking at other churches this week. I want to be with happy joyful Christians not Pharisees. I feel the cofC is a denomination myself.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
You feel it's a denomination? How about what the bible SAYS? We can't go on human emotions.
EdvisP 3 years ago
Buy yourself a dictionary. Denomination is a name designation for a group of people. Stop being intellectually dishonest thinking you are not like everyone else, and an elitist. I left cofC over people like that, self righteous Pharisees. And I am MUCH happier to be with the TRUE church, not some proud works-based DENOMINATIONS of cofC who think they are the only Christians (can anyone say cult?).
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
Those who wish to call the Lord's church a cult or denomination would benefit greatly - if they read with a willing mind and open heart - from an article written by the late Dr. Hugo McCord called "Earmarks of the True Church". It's very insightful.
jrutled3 3 years ago
Those who practice sectarianism and divide the body of Christ, saying their interpretation of the Word is the only way to heaven are nothing short of a cult. But you won't even look up the meaning of denomination in a dictionary, so I am not hopeful that you will seek the truth. I have left cofC and my eyes have been opened. No more fear mongering for me.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
Who says I haven't looked it up in a dictionary; you? You do so with no proof, and make yourself out to be a liar out of ignorance because, in fact, I have.
If you've read the article I referred you to you might conclude that I'm of the same mindset as Dr. McCord. The scriptures never give a formal name to the kingdom of God. All the names present in scripture are, in reality, descriptions of the nature of the church. To unlawfully give it a formal name is to denominate it.
jrutled3 3 years ago
cont.
And I'd also like to point out that you ridiculed me for no reason. Why? All I did was refer you to an article that I thought was insightful and that you might find interesting.
jrutled3 3 years ago
My apologies, I am just tired of arguing the same arguments over and over when the dictionary clearly states any group with a collective name is a denomination. Also nowhere do you find the name "church of Christ" mentioned. When referring to multiple churches they are one time called churches of Christ. If you want to be literal about it churches should only be called "the Ephesian church", "church at Smyrna", etc.
That's how silly things get when we need "authorization" for everything.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
I don't think it's silly to need authorization for everything because "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." There are three things that need to be taken from this scripture; no, four things. 1) Jesus is commanding this; 2) Worship is direct to God; 3) Our worship MUST be in spirit; and 3) Our worship MUST be in truth.
Not only should our worship to God be spiritual, full of solemnity and love, but also conducted in the truth of God's revealed word.
cont.
jrutled3 3 years ago
While I also see nothing wrong with simply saying "The Church at ..." - so long as they remain in the spirit and doctrine of Christ - there is nothing wrong with recognizing ownership of the church on a church sign, or on the building itself. The apostles didn't either, frequently saying "church of God" in their writings. But men did not purchase His church with their blood, and so the church cannot bear their names. To recognizing the church as anyone else's is to denominate it.
jrutled3 3 years ago
If you want to play the "authorization game" you live and die by that man made "law". Where do you have authorization for Power Point, church buildings, crackers and a thimble of grape juice, microphones, etc. Yet you do have authorization for anointing with oil, laying of hands, spiritual gifts, prophecy, women covering heads, etc. yet cofC is blissfully silent or blatantly against these.
Seems a little inconsistent, no?
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
PowerPoint, church buildings, etc. are expediencies, not doctrinal issues. The laying on of hands was only something that could be done by the apostles (to dispense miraculous gifts that could not be passed on) or by the elders confirming a minister or another elder. Since we have no apostles, and no one the apostles laid their hands on living today, it's safe to say that the miraculous side of that issue is a mute one (also spiritual gifts and prophecy).
jrutled3 3 years ago
And the comment of women covering their heads was directed to women causing discord among the brethren. They thought that they did not have to submit themselves to social norms, and therefore cause dissension and rebellion among the brethren of that congregation.
Context is always key when discussing doctrinal issues. Does that make things inconsistent? No. Speaking out of ignorance and inaccurately handling the word of truth, however, does.
jrutled3 3 years ago
"And the comment of women covering their heads was directed to women causing discord among the brethren."
1Co 11:5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head; for that is even the same as if she were shaved.
So this is only for some rebellious women, according to you? Then when and why did the rebellious women win? And doesn't this prove the point that culture plays a role in worship? Doesn't fit what cofC teaches about culture being irrelevant.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
You should read the entire context of that verse in 1 Corinthians 11 (specifically 1-22) and then you will understand, hopefully, what I was saying. Verse 16 is a key one in this case.
jrutled3 3 years ago
The bottom line is, culture won that battle, and the fact that cofC denies all cultural validity is a glaring hypocrisy. One of many actually.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
Are you kidding me? It would seem that it wasn't merely a cultural issue. The women, and some of the men as well, were acting out of order. And Paul makes his main point by looking not to the culture of the times, but to creation itself (8-9). His point was not that culture has precedence over the worship of the church. It was that women and men were being contentious and causing disturbances in the church. Therefore, he stepped in to control the matter (16-17), reproving them at every angle.
jrutled3 3 years ago
"Therefore, he stepped in to control the matter (16-17), reproving them at every angle. "
And which side of that battle are you on? Who won that battle, and why are you not insisting that women act accordinglly? You are making my point for me btw.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
"PowerPoint, church buildings, etc. are expediencies, not doctrinal issues. " Where's your Biblical authorization for that statement? Either everything needs to be authorized or not. You can't have it both ways.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
The early church met in houses and Jewish temples. There is no scriptural reference where the place of meeting was of any significance for the NT church. In fact, there is quite the opposite. Go back to John 4.
"Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the the Father. [...] But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth..." (John 4:21,23).
NT worship is irrespective of place.
jrutled3 3 years ago
"NT worship is irrespective of place. "'
Says you. This is also just another example of a cofC'er picking and choosing which scripture they will bind on others and which they explain away. You can't have it both ways; if you want to say we have to all have the same name as the early NT church, then you have to also say that we need to meet in homes and sell all our belongings and give the proceeds to the poor.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
You are unbelievable, belligerently pulling my comments out of context and adding to them. Show me where I said that we needed to meet in homes and sell all our belongings. I'll give you hint where to start: I never did.
I said that NT worship is irrespective of place because, for one, that's what Jesus said. Secondly, that was the practice of the NT church. Regardless of wherever we meet - in homes, buildings, or under a tree - we are commanded to gather and worship God in spirit and truth.
jrutled3 3 years ago
If you would remember correctly what I said you would quit lying about what I have said. The kingdom of God does not have a formal name. It was the church - the one lead by the apostles and which continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine - that belonged to God and Christ. Nothing more, nothing less. To add a name devised of men is to corrupt and adulterate the church. The church belongs to Christ. It is His bride. If Christ did not denominate the church, where did man get the audacity?
jrutled3 3 years ago
And crackers and thimbles of juice in place of the Lord's supper not doctrinal??? If the Lord's supper isn't doctrinal I don't know what is. You tread a razor thin line of don ctrine, and I think you just bit the dust on that one.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
Full of solemnity? Where is your authorization for that statement? Sounds a whole lot like another Pharisee-ism to me.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
I have a strong feeling that whatever doesn't fit into your "against all things coc" you will call Pharisee-ism. Therefore, I doubt anything I say will ever break the surface of your very own Pharisaical hardheadedness.
But since you asked, I would like to point out that the very subject of Christ and His work in our stead is a very solemn yet joyous topic. One scriptural reference would be Acts 28:23 where Paul was "solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God."
jrutled3 3 years ago
Pharisees are the ones who bind on everyone else their particular set of beliefs and say it is the only way to Heaven, and condemn all others.
Also the word solemn is not in the NT. I am looking at the Greek and it isn't there. But if it were there you still wouldn't have a leg to stand on saying because Paul was solemn once, every worship following should be. That would be a non sequitur. What God didn't say, don't bind on others. Could it be any easier?
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
Well, if you wish to take the argument that far, then you might as well say that not one word in the English NT is in the Greek (accept for those that are transliterated). But isn't that the whole point of translation?
I would still disagree. The word in that verse is diamarturomai which means "to testify, attest to, to solemnly affirm." And many times when Paul's ministry was described by himself or others, this word was used. And for Peter as well, in Acts 2:40.
jrutled3 3 years ago
You still missed my point: even if Paul was solemn when he preached the word once, doesn't mean you make that a law of worship. Stop with the Pharisee view of worship. We are under grace and liberty, not another set of laws. CofC is not teaching grace properly. Perfect love casteth out fear.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
"If I think more of my reasoning and deduction than I do of my brethren, I'll sacrifice brotherhood to my deduction. The reverse is not true. Through brotherly love I can retain both my brethren and my personal conviction. This I am resolved to do. It is merely a matter of priorities."
hogs55 3 years ago
I do not know who you are quoting from, but I must ask you something: Would you sacrifice your relationship with God in order to maintain unity with a brother or sister who is in error?
John warned that we are not to even send a greeting to those who do not abide in the teaching of Christ (2 John 9-11). Paul even instructed the Corinthians "not to associate with any so-called brother" who was in error. He even commanded them, "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves" (1 Corinthians 5).
jrutled3 3 years ago
My relationship w/God isn't ever "sacrificied" when I love people. The verses u quote come from 3 separate contexts & really can't be mixed together to prove the point you made. Jesus gave us 2 direct commands which seem to make your question moot(Mark 12). How could loving other people EVER sacrifice my relationship with God when He says that the greatest 2 commands are to, in fact, love God and love each other? The litmus test for christianity is not our perfect doctrine keeping-it's love.
hogs55 3 years ago
I never said that you could not love people. Indeed, Christ demanded that we first love God, and then our neighbor. Your quote says, "It is merely a matter of priorities." I agree. Confused at what you wished to covey, I introduced the topic of a brother in error. In such a case you are to love God more and follow His revealed conviction. You can't have fellowship with a fallen brother and God too. By the way, I only quoted two portions of scripture, so how can there be three different contexts?
jrutled3 3 years ago
Correction: I meant to have said "I only CITED" in stead of "quoted".
jrutled3 3 years ago
I don't think the quote is referring to truth vs error. It is talking about my conviction vs your conviction. If you associate your reasoning and deduction from Scripture as "truth" and another's as "error", then that's where this quotes suggestion can help. 1 Cor 5 refers specifically to an immoral man. Not someone who thinks it's ok to use musical instruments, for ex. The priority is maintaining one's conviction w/humility & not sacrificing relationship with my brethren over it.
hogs55 3 years ago
While I do not agree with your example of instrumental music in worship, I do see your point and thank you for clearing it up. ;)
jrutled3 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I do not know who you are quoting from, but I must ask you something: Would you sacrifice your relationship with God in order to maintain unity with a brother or sister who is in error?
John warned that we are not to even send a greeting to those who do not abide in the teaching of Christ (2 John 9-11). Paul even instructed the Corinthians "not to associate with any so-called brother" who was in error. He even commanded them, "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves" (1 Corinthians 5).
jrutled3 3 years ago
The Church of Christ is a denomination. The Churches of Christ movement was one of several associations and denominations that developed from Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott and Barton W. Stone's restoration movement of the early 19th century, which was designed to promote unity among Protestants.
It has all of the characteristics of a denomination: Church buildings, church signs, organization, membership..etc. Look up denomination sometime and see what it means.
Drizzie33 3 years ago
God did not invent denominations, man did. Jesus said, "I will build MY church,..." (Matthew 16: 18). The word "church" literally means "the called out" (check any New Testament Greek/English Dictionary). It is a collective noun used to refer to "a people for God's own possession,...called out of darkness into His marvelous light,... the people of God" (1 Peter 2:9,10). ndividually, they are called "Christians" (1 Peter 4:16; Acts 11;26),
EdvisP 3 years ago
Forget it, they are not intellectually honest enough to admit they are a denomination like everyone else. They fiercely deny that though anyone with a dictionary knows that is a lie. And they trace their movement all the way back to the first century church which is another fallacy. Where was cofC for almost two thousand years? Hmmmm...
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
Please get another job Norm. You are destroying the faith with your nonsense.
Rex79 3 years ago
PreacherNorm do you believe everyone in all denominations are going to hell? Not all Baptists believe in OSAS.
NoLongerSilenced 4 years ago
It is not possible to be a saved person in a man-made church (Acts 2:47).
PreacherNorm 4 years ago
I'm a member of a cofC and I think it's outrageous to say that. The Lord adds to HIS church those who are being saved? What makes you think that is cofC and not just whoever he adds to HIS church? It sounds like the Pharisees who thought they knew the law so they were righteous but they had no understanding, or compassion. Is it the perfect doctrine because that doesn't exist? Is it the name? There will never be a perfect cofC worship and cofC are just as much sinners as anywhere else.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
Norm- wonder why Carl Ketcherside ( church of christ preacher ) used to say that there were christians in almost every denomination, Alexander Campbell said the same thing, Ketcherside also said - where God has a child, I have a brother, albeit, he might be a brother in error, but thats the ONLY kind of brother we can have - for we are all in error - even YOU. You should read some of the writings of Carl Ketcherside, it might open thine eyes a little. Anyway, regarding Acts 2:47 - cont
savinggrace4u2 3 years ago
Regarding Acts 2:47 - The Lord adds to his UNIVERSAL church - written in Heaven - not some man made local church with a man made book of names, the Lords church exists in Heaven and functions on earth in various local human bodies, and the NAME church of Christ is NOT an exlusive name for the Lords church anyway - in Rom 16:16, the literal meaning there is - assemblies of the annointed one, more often the scriptures identify the Lords church as the church of God anyway - chew on that!
savinggrace4u2 3 years ago
VERY interesting. And amen of course. I'll remember the gentleman in prayer. Thanks for a good video clip, Norm. Five Stars.
ParodyKnaveBob 4 years ago